VIDEO: Solemn vigil in Bradford marks Hiroshima anniversary

VIDEO: Solemn vigil in Bradford marks Hiroshima anniversary

MEMORIAL: Brenda Thompson holds a peace candle brought for the service to remember the victims of the Hiroshima bomb 69 years ago

MEMORIAL: Brenda Thompson holds a peace candle brought for the service to remember the victims of the Hiroshima bomb 69 years ago

First published in News
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , T&A Reporter

PEACE campaigners and officials gathered in Bradford today for a poignant service to mark the 69th anniversary of the dropping of the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima.

Dignitaries, including the Lord Mayor of Bradford Councillor Mike Gibbons, chaplain of the University of Bradford Reverend Suzanne Vernon-Yorke and co-chairman of Yorkshire CND Dave Webb, were among those who read poetry, messages from the Mayor of Hiroshima and accounts of victims of the disaster.

The vigil, held in Norfolk Gardens near City Hall, commemorated the anniversary of the Hiroshima attack on August 6, 1945 that killed an estimated 140,000 people.

Three days later another atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki killing a further 70,000.

The service concluded with a wreath of white flowers being laid by the Mayor and a candle lit on a memorial stone to the Hiroshima victims by Bradford peace campaigner Brenda Thomson.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:13pm Wed 6 Aug 14

fedupwiththeBS says...

Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.
Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened. fedupwiththeBS
  • Score: 2

6:09pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Robin of Loxley says...

fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.
So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
[quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.[/p][/quote]So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ? Robin of Loxley
  • Score: -2

6:52pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Apollo says...

Robin of Loxley wrote:
fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.
So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Different wars, different times, different enemies and different allies.....for a start.

Agree using bombs on Japan ended their resistance and was correct use.
[quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.[/p][/quote]So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?[/p][/quote]Different wars, different times, different enemies and different allies.....for a start. Agree using bombs on Japan ended their resistance and was correct use. Apollo
  • Score: 3

8:00pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Robin of Loxley says...

Apollo wrote:
Robin of Loxley wrote:
fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.
So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Different wars, different times, different enemies and different allies.....for a start.

Agree using bombs on Japan ended their resistance and was correct use.
Time does not change the theatre of war.

And you say different enemies? - Not sure what you mean by that. Surely your enemy is your enemy regardless of what form they take?

And I still can't see why the nuke option wasn't used in Iraq or Afghanistan. What makes you think it wouldn't have worked?
[quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.[/p][/quote]So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?[/p][/quote]Different wars, different times, different enemies and different allies.....for a start. Agree using bombs on Japan ended their resistance and was correct use.[/p][/quote]Time does not change the theatre of war. And you say different enemies? - Not sure what you mean by that. Surely your enemy is your enemy regardless of what form they take? And I still can't see why the nuke option wasn't used in Iraq or Afghanistan. What makes you think it wouldn't have worked? Robin of Loxley
  • Score: -2

9:01pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Cityman23 says...

Robin of Loxley wrote:
Apollo wrote:
Robin of Loxley wrote:
fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.
So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Different wars, different times, different enemies and different allies.....for a start.

Agree using bombs on Japan ended their resistance and was correct use.
Time does not change the theatre of war.

And you say different enemies? - Not sure what you mean by that. Surely your enemy is your enemy regardless of what form they take?

And I still can't see why the nuke option wasn't used in Iraq or Afghanistan. What makes you think it wouldn't have worked?
Firstly, the use of nuclear weaponry which was what those two bombs were -atomic and hydrogen -may not have been justified, because there's historical evidence to suggest Japan was on the point of surrendering.

2nd, to those who say using nuclear weapons is justified, it is seen as a war crime today. Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children killed, maimed horribly and even radioactivity to kill and damage people later too.

3rd, in answering 'Why were nuclear weapons not used in Iraq or Aghanistan?' You could also say ' Why were they never used in Vietnam?'- a war the USA lost.

The answer is nuclear weapons are now unusable. Thermo nuclear inter continental ballistic missiles are many more times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by aeroplane. The deaths would be in the millions, the fall-out of radioactivity would go everywhere, right into the atmosphere ( just like Chernobyl) coming back on the west and other countries of the world.

And of course, other countries would treat us as pariahs for evermore, apart from the fact, others have nuclear weapons too and it could start a chain of nuclear bombings- a nuclear conflagration or 'Armageddon.'

We have four submarines carrying nuclear weapons. they cost £billions to maintain and are a waste of money apart from being morally reprehensible because if they're ever used, this country would likely face obliteration.
[quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.[/p][/quote]So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?[/p][/quote]Different wars, different times, different enemies and different allies.....for a start. Agree using bombs on Japan ended their resistance and was correct use.[/p][/quote]Time does not change the theatre of war. And you say different enemies? - Not sure what you mean by that. Surely your enemy is your enemy regardless of what form they take? And I still can't see why the nuke option wasn't used in Iraq or Afghanistan. What makes you think it wouldn't have worked?[/p][/quote]Firstly, the use of nuclear weaponry which was what those two bombs were -atomic and hydrogen -may not have been justified, because there's historical evidence to suggest Japan was on the point of surrendering. 2nd, to those who say using nuclear weapons is justified, it is seen as a war crime today. Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children killed, maimed horribly and even radioactivity to kill and damage people later too. 3rd, in answering 'Why were nuclear weapons not used in Iraq or Aghanistan?' You could also say ' Why were they never used in Vietnam?'- a war the USA lost. The answer is nuclear weapons are now unusable. Thermo nuclear inter continental ballistic missiles are many more times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by aeroplane. The deaths would be in the millions, the fall-out of radioactivity would go everywhere, right into the atmosphere ( just like Chernobyl) coming back on the west and other countries of the world. And of course, other countries would treat us as pariahs for evermore, apart from the fact, others have nuclear weapons too and it could start a chain of nuclear bombings- a nuclear conflagration or 'Armageddon.' We have four submarines carrying nuclear weapons. they cost £billions to maintain and are a waste of money apart from being morally reprehensible because if they're ever used, this country would likely face obliteration. Cityman23
  • Score: 4

9:04pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Robin of Loxley says...

The answer is nuclear weapons are now unusable. Thermo nuclear inter continental ballistic missiles are many more times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by aeroplane. The deaths would be in the millions, the fall-out of radioactivity would go everywhere, right into the atmosphere ( just like Chernobyl) coming back on the west and other countries of the world.


Why not use a similar nuke that was used in Hiroshima?

And there seems to be no problem re. fallout. Everyone seems fine over there.
[quote]The answer is nuclear weapons are now unusable. Thermo nuclear inter continental ballistic missiles are many more times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by aeroplane. The deaths would be in the millions, the fall-out of radioactivity would go everywhere, right into the atmosphere ( just like Chernobyl) coming back on the west and other countries of the world. [/quote] Why not use a similar nuke that was used in Hiroshima? And there seems to be no problem re. fallout. Everyone seems fine over there. Robin of Loxley
  • Score: -3

9:43pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Cityman23 says...

These bombs were dropped in Japan nearly 70 years ago! Many people died in 1945 and succeeding years. Some ARE still affected.

The bomb of 1945 doesn't exist any more just like the penny farthing bicycle doesn't exist anymore! But remember when Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean was used for testing an early bomb, people watched it going off at what they thought was a safe distance. Many have been involved in trying to sue the government, because they are suffering from cancers and others radioactive - causing illnesses.
These bombs were dropped in Japan nearly 70 years ago! Many people died in 1945 and succeeding years. Some ARE still affected. The bomb of 1945 doesn't exist any more just like the penny farthing bicycle doesn't exist anymore! But remember when Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean was used for testing an early bomb, people watched it going off at what they thought was a safe distance. Many have been involved in trying to sue the government, because they are suffering from cancers and others radioactive - causing illnesses. Cityman23
  • Score: 3

9:59pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Albion. says...

I prefer to reflect on the cruelty that the Japanese inflicted on British POWs.
I prefer to reflect on the cruelty that the Japanese inflicted on British POWs. Albion.
  • Score: 1

10:39pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Cityman23 says...

Albion. wrote:
I prefer to reflect on the cruelty that the Japanese inflicted on British POWs.
It was certain members of the Japanese army that inflicted these cruelties not the elderly and women and children who were at home and who died in the nuclear blast.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: I prefer to reflect on the cruelty that the Japanese inflicted on British POWs.[/p][/quote]It was certain members of the Japanese army that inflicted these cruelties not the elderly and women and children who were at home and who died in the nuclear blast. Cityman23
  • Score: 8

10:53pm Wed 6 Aug 14

davidh66 says...

Robin of Loxley wrote:
fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.
So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
What a stupid quote we now have different weapons with accuracy try to keep civilian casualties down to a minimal.
[quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.[/p][/quote]So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?[/p][/quote]What a stupid quote we now have different weapons with accuracy try to keep civilian casualties down to a minimal. davidh66
  • Score: -2

10:53pm Wed 6 Aug 14

davidh66 says...

Robin of Loxley wrote:
fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.
So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
What a stupid quote we now have different weapons with accuracy try to keep civilian casualties down to a minimal.
[quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: Lets not forgetter that these two bombs forced Japan to surrender and ended the war in the far east which would have dragged on for months if it had not happened.[/p][/quote]So why did we not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan ?[/p][/quote]What a stupid quote we now have different weapons with accuracy try to keep civilian casualties down to a minimal. davidh66
  • Score: -2

11:06pm Wed 6 Aug 14

tinytoonster says...

Cityman23 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
I prefer to reflect on the cruelty that the Japanese inflicted on British POWs.
It was certain members of the Japanese army that inflicted these cruelties not the elderly and women and children who were at home and who died in the nuclear blast.
unfortunately innocents die in war.
the leaders decide to go to war so blame them.
[quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: I prefer to reflect on the cruelty that the Japanese inflicted on British POWs.[/p][/quote]It was certain members of the Japanese army that inflicted these cruelties not the elderly and women and children who were at home and who died in the nuclear blast.[/p][/quote]unfortunately innocents die in war. the leaders decide to go to war so blame them. tinytoonster
  • Score: 4

10:02am Sat 9 Aug 14

Cityman23 says...

tinytoonster wrote:
Cityman23 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
I prefer to reflect on the cruelty that the Japanese inflicted on British POWs.
It was certain members of the Japanese army that inflicted these cruelties not the elderly and women and children who were at home and who died in the nuclear blast.
unfortunately innocents die in war.
the leaders decide to go to war so blame them.
Yes, but you say you choose to reflect on cruelty inflicted on British soldiers. They are innocent victims of cruelty which is also part of war. Do you not find that cruelty, torture, and horrendous injury and death caused in war by any side is repugnant.

To single out bad behaviour to our own side but not to others, doesn't seem to imply you care so much about the bad behaviour, just that it not be done to your own side.

War IS HELL. The worst cruelties and depravities always take place in war, despite the romantic notions of bravery and glory served up by films, books and TV.

So, the principled stand is to be anti- war.

This country, our country, seems to have been in the thick of many of them for many, many years. And still is.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: I prefer to reflect on the cruelty that the Japanese inflicted on British POWs.[/p][/quote]It was certain members of the Japanese army that inflicted these cruelties not the elderly and women and children who were at home and who died in the nuclear blast.[/p][/quote]unfortunately innocents die in war. the leaders decide to go to war so blame them.[/p][/quote]Yes, but you say you choose to reflect on cruelty inflicted on British soldiers. They are innocent victims of cruelty which is also part of war. Do you not find that cruelty, torture, and horrendous injury and death caused in war by any side is repugnant. To single out bad behaviour to our own side but not to others, doesn't seem to imply you care so much about the bad behaviour, just that it not be done to your own side. War IS HELL. The worst cruelties and depravities always take place in war, despite the romantic notions of bravery and glory served up by films, books and TV. So, the principled stand is to be anti- war. This country, our country, seems to have been in the thick of many of them for many, many years. And still is. Cityman23
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree